Eruvin 73a (עג.) — the Talmud in English

Rav said:

the place of eating

[eating].

And Shmuel said: The place of lodging.

The following objection is raised

against Rav, who says that the place of eating determines:

As it was taught:

shepherds

in the fields outside the city,

and summer fig-watchers

[those who guard figs spread out to dry them] outside the city,

and burgans

[city watchmen],

and fruit guards

outside the city—

when their practice is to lodge in the city, they are considered residents of the city

with regard to the Shabbat boundary, as the entire city is considered for them like four cubits, and they have two thousand cubits from the city in every direction.

But

when their practice is to lodge in the field—

they have

from the place where they lodge

two thousand

cubits

in every direction.

We see, then, that although they eat in the city, they follow the place where they lodge and not the place of eating, contrary to Rav! The Gemara answers:

There, it is self-evident to us that if bread were brought to them there

[if bread were brought to them in the field, where they lodge]—

it would be more convenient for them

[it would be preferable for their place of eating to be there, since that is also where they lodge].

Rav Yosef said

after he became ill and forgot his learning:

I have not heard this teaching

of Rav, who says that the place of eating determines.

Abaye said to him: You yourself taught it to us

as Rav’s teaching,

and you taught us this as well:

Regarding that which we learned in our Mishna:

Brothers who would eat at their father’s table but sleep in their own houses—

require an eruv for each and every one.

And we said to you

[as we said in the Gemara above]:

Conclude from this that the place of lodging determines

and therefore each one requires an eruv, since by lodging separately they are separated.

And you said to us concerning this: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

It is not speaking of those who eat together in their father’s house, but rather,

it is referring to recipients of a portion.

But ordinarily, the place of eating determines [as we rejected this in the Gemara above].

The Sages taught: One who has five wives,

each of whom has an apartment in a courtyard and

receives a portion

[food expenses]

from her husband, and five

[or five]

slaves receive a portion from their master.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava disagree as to whether each one requires a separate eruv.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira permits—

he does not require a separate eruv for each one—

in the case of wives.

But he prohibits it in the case of slaves.

This is because the wives are subordinate to their husbands, from whom they receive their portions; they are considered like him, as part of his household. They are also subordinate to one another, so that they do not prohibit one another, since the husband unites them.

But slaves are not so entirely subordinate to their master, nor are they subordinate to one another [Ritva; see there as well].

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava

holds the opposite view, and therefore

permits it in the case of slaves and prohibits it in the case of wives,

since slaves are considered part of their master’s household, unlike wives [Ritva].

Rav said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava?

As it is written: “And Daniel at the king’s gate”

[sitting at the king’s gate].

Thus, although he did not sit at the gate all day, Scripture considered him as one who sits there, since he received a portion from the king and was his servant and slave [Ritva, in his understanding of Rashi].

It is obvious

to us that

a son in his father’s household

has, with regard to eruv, the same status

as we said

in our Mishna.

A wife in her husband’s household, and a slave in his master’s household,

it is likewise obvious to us that, with regard to eruv, their status is

subject to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava,

as was explained in the Gemara above.

And we inquire:

A student

who lives

with his teacher

in the same courtyard, in a separate house, and receives a portion from his teacher—

what is his status?

Come and hear: Rav,

when he was a student

in the house of Rabbi Hiyya,

his uncle,

said: We do not need to establish an eruv, since we

rely on Rabbi Hiyya’s table!

And Rabbi Hiyya,

when he was a student

in the house of Rabbi, said: We do not need to establish an eruv, since we rely on Rabbi’s table!

Abaye asked Rabba:

Five

who lived in one courtyard,

who collected their eruv,

and wished to establish an eruv with another courtyard,

when

they

take their eruv to another location,

that is, when they establish a joint eruv with another courtyard and place it in that other courtyard—is it

one eruv for all of them,

or does each one require a separate eruv?

He said to him

Rabba to Abaye:

One eruv is sufficient for all of them.

The Gemara challenges this from our Mishna:

But the brothers, who, when they

five who

collected

their eruv

are comparable to them,

as we see in the Mishna that if no other residents are with them, they do not prohibit one another; thus, they are considered as though they had collected an eruv among themselves.

And

nevertheless

it teaches

in the Mishna:

they require

an eruv for each and every one

when they take their eruv to another location.

Our present assumption is that what the Mishna teaches, “when they take their eruv to another location,” refers to a case in which no other residents are with them and they take the eruv to another courtyard.

It must therefore be that even five who collected an eruv require a separate eruv for each one when they take it elsewhere. This is an objection to Rabba, who said: One eruv is sufficient for all of them!

The Gemara rejects this:

What are we dealing with here? A case in which there are other residents

other

with them

in the same courtyard, and they take an eruv to another courtyard; or even a case in which they established an eruv with those residents and take the eruv to the house of another resident in the courtyard.

Since this is so, no proof can be drawn from here to our case.

For this case is different,

since, because these

[the other residents]

prohibit,

and must contribute an eruv,

these

[the five brothers]

also prohibit.

But if no other residents are with them, and they come to place an eruv in an entirely different location, they do not require a separate eruv for each one; rather, one eruv is sufficient for all of them.

This too is logically evident

that the reason for the Mishna is based on the principle that since some prohibit, all prohibit:

For it teaches

in the latter clause of the Mishna:

When

they require a separate eruv for each one—

when they take their eruv to another location.

But if their eruv was brought to them,

or if there are no other residents with them in the courtyard—

they do not need to establish an eruv.

Thus, there is a distinction between a case in which there are other residents, where we say, “since these prohibit, those also prohibit,” and a case in which there are no other residents.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this [see the Ritva, who questions why the Gemara says, “This too is logically evident,” since it is compelled; see there].

[See the Ritva, who questions why the Gemara says, “This too is logically evident,” since it is compelled; see there.]

Rav Hiyya bar Avin asked Rav Sheshet: Students of the house of study

[students of the yeshiva]

who eat bread in the fields

[who eat their bread at an inn in the valley],

and come and lodge in the house of study

[and come to sleep in the bet midrash].

When we measure

when measuring

their Shabbat boundary,

do we

measure it from the house of study, or do we measure it from the fields

[when measuring their Shabbat boundary, do we measure from the bet midrash, since they sleep there, or from the valley, where they eat]?

He said to him

Rav Sheshet:

We measure from the house of study

[we measure from the bet midrash], because it is the place where they lodge!

Rav Hiyya bar Avin challenged him:

But

what of one who wishes to go beyond his boundary and

places his eruv

[an eruv of food, for purposes of the Shabbat boundary]

within two thousand cubits, and then comes and lodges in his house

[and returns to sleep in his house],

for we measure his boundary from his eruv

[the boundary is measured from the place where the eruv was placed].

We see that one follows the place of eating and not the place of lodging?!

He said to him

Rav Sheshet [the Bah]:

In that case

[the placement of the eruv],

it is self-evident to us

what his primary location is;

and in this case

[his lodging in the bet midrash],

it is self-evident to us

what his primary location is, as will be explained.

In that case—

it is self-evident to us that if he could lodge there

more

it would be convenient for him

[if he could sleep at the place where he placed his eruv, it would be more convenient for him], since that is why he placed an eruv there: he wishes to go from there in the direction for which he established the eruv.

And in this case—

it is self-evident to us that if bread were brought to them in the house of study, it would be more convenient for them

[if bread were brought to them in the bet midrash, it would be more convenient for them], since they would then not need to go to the valley. They go to the valley only because they have an “inn” there that supplies them with food.

The halakha is that if there are two courtyards, one within the other, with an opening between them, and the residents of the inner courtyard customarily reach the public domain through the outer courtyard, then, if there are many residents in the inner courtyard who did not establish an eruv among themselves and are prohibited from carrying in their courtyard, they prohibit the residents of the outer courtyard from carrying there by passing through it.

But if there is only one resident in the inner courtyard, who is permitted to carry in his location, he does not prohibit the residents of the outer courtyard from carrying there by passing through it, as is explained in the Mishna below, on page 75a: a foot that is permitted in its place does not prohibit by passing through a place that is not its own. [And see above, page 66b.] Therefore, there is room for inquiry:

Rami bar Hama asked Rav Hisda: A father and his son

living in the inner courtyard and eating, each in a different house, except that the son receives a portion from his father [Tosafot, Ritva].

Or

a teacher and his student

living in the inner courtyard—

what is their status? Are they

like many

residents of the inner courtyard

considered

and do they prohibit the residents of the outer courtyard by passing through it,

or are they like individuals

in the inner courtyard

considered

and do they not prohibit?

This inquiry is dependent on another inquiry [Ritva]:

Do

the father and his son, or the teacher and his student, require

each other

an eruv

when no other residents are with them, and consequently are considered like many, prohibiting the outer courtyard if they did not establish an eruv, as is the law of a foot that is prohibited in its place and prohibits by passing through a place that is not its own,

or do they not require an eruv

between them, and are considered like individuals?

He further inquires: Since an alleyway that opens onto the public domain cannot be rendered permissible for carrying by means of a side-post and a crossbeam unless two courtyards belonging to two houses open onto the alleyway, the question arises:

Are a father and his son, or a teacher and his student, considered to have their courtyards as separate courtyards, and therefore

their alleyway is rendered permissible by means of a side-post and a crossbeam,

or

are their courtyards considered one courtyard, and therefore

their

alleyway

is not rendered permissible by means of a side-post and a crossbeam.

Rather, one must place posts four handbreadths wide at its entrance, as is required for a courtyard, in order to permit carrying in their alleyway.

Rav Hisda said to him: You have learned the answers to both inquiries

from a baraita:

1.

A father and his son, a teacher and his student, when no other residents are with them,

others,

are considered like individuals and do not need to establish an eruv.

Consequently, if they live in an inner courtyard, they are a foot that is permitted in its place, and they do not prohibit the outer courtyard by passing through it.

But if other residents are with them, since those residents prohibit, these also prohibit, as we said above.

2.

And

nevertheless,

their alleyway is rendered permissible by means of a side-post and a crossbeam!

They are considered two courtyards opening onto the alleyway with regard to the rectification of the alleyway, despite the fact that with regard to courtyard eruvin they do not need to establish an eruv between them.

Mishna:

Five courtyards that open into one another,

and open onto an alleyway:

1.

If they established eruvin in the courtyards

whether each courtyard established its own eruv, or all the courtyards established a joint eruv through the opening between them, in order to carry from one to another—but

did not participate in the alleyway

in order to carry from the courtyards into the alleyway, one may not rely on the courtyard eruv in a place where a joint participation in the alleyway is required, and

they are permitted

to carry only

in the courtyards, but are prohibited

from carrying

in the alleyway.